Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.429, 0.173

0.405

time_point

1st

2nd

0.028

0.132

-0.230, 0.287

0.829

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.192

0.190

-0.180, 0.565

0.313

Pseudo R square

0.004

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.268

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.379

-0.823, 0.663

0.833

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.128

0.238

-0.595, 0.339

0.591

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.968

0.345

0.292, 1.64

0.005

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.503

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.711

-1.06, 1.73

0.637

time_point

1st

2nd

0.715

0.386

-0.041, 1.47

0.065

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.972

0.559

-0.124, 2.07

0.084

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.183

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.258

-0.474, 0.538

0.901

time_point

1st

2nd

0.044

0.170

-0.289, 0.377

0.797

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.259

0.246

-0.223, 0.741

0.294

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.289

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.409

-0.457, 1.15

0.401

time_point

1st

2nd

0.453

0.247

-0.032, 0.937

0.068

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.352

0.358

-0.350, 1.05

0.327

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.262

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.371

-0.543, 0.911

0.620

time_point

1st

2nd

0.376

0.201

-0.018, 0.770

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.269

0.291

-0.302, 0.840

0.357

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.215

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.303

-0.987, 0.203

0.197

time_point

1st

2nd

0.102

0.205

-0.299, 0.503

0.618

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.738

0.296

0.158, 1.32

0.013

Pseudo R square

0.015

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.877

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.241

-3.72, 1.14

0.300

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.45

0.623

-2.67, -0.224

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.099

0.903

-1.87, 1.67

0.913

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.409

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.579

-1.14, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.448

0.334

-0.206, 1.10

0.181

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.095

0.484

-0.852, 1.04

0.844

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.513

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.725

-0.582, 2.26

0.248

time_point

1st

2nd

0.488

0.404

-0.305, 1.28

0.229

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.211

0.586

-0.937, 1.36

0.719

Pseudo R square

0.009

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.643

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.909

-0.414, 3.15

0.134

time_point

1st

2nd

1.23

0.472

0.301, 2.15

0.010

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.058

0.683

-1.28, 1.40

0.932

Pseudo R square

0.016

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.336

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.475

-0.580, 1.28

0.459

time_point

1st

2nd

0.444

0.250

-0.045, 0.933

0.077

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.047

0.362

-0.756, 0.662

0.897

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.543

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.769

-1.51, 1.51

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.720

0.408

-0.080, 1.52

0.079

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.457

0.592

-0.703, 1.62

0.441

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.630

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.891

-1.43, 2.07

0.720

time_point

1st

2nd

1.11

0.457

0.216, 2.01

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.120

0.662

-1.42, 1.18

0.856

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.387

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.548

-0.314, 1.83

0.166

time_point

1st

2nd

0.654

0.336

-0.005, 1.31

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.470

0.487

-0.484, 1.42

0.336

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.354

0.050, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.041

0.197

-0.426, 0.344

0.836

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.380

0.285

-0.178, 0.938

0.183

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.284

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.402

-0.396, 1.18

0.330

time_point

1st

2nd

0.375

0.222

-0.061, 0.810

0.093

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.262

0.322

-0.369, 0.893

0.416

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.416

-0.119, 1.51

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.323

0.212

-0.092, 0.738

0.129

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.153

0.307

-0.449, 0.755

0.618

Pseudo R square

0.017

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.538

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.761

-0.403, 2.58

0.154

time_point

1st

2nd

0.694

0.371

-0.033, 1.42

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.431

0.538

-0.622, 1.49

0.423

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.820

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.159

-3.49, 1.06

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.683

0.590

-1.84, 0.473

0.248

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.26

0.855

-2.94, 0.415

0.142

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.445

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.629

-0.225, 2.24

0.110

time_point

1st

2nd

0.350

0.328

-0.293, 0.993

0.287

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.536

0.475

-0.395, 1.47

0.261

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.361

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.511

0.007, 2.01

0.049

time_point

1st

2nd

0.588

0.288

0.023, 1.15

0.043

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.232

0.417

-0.585, 1.05

0.578

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.767

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.085

-0.111, 4.14

0.064

time_point

1st

2nd

0.935

0.560

-0.163, 2.03

0.097

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.779

0.812

-0.811, 2.37

0.338

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.142

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.201

-0.466, 0.322

0.721

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.134

0.153

-0.434, 0.166

0.381

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.176

0.221

-0.257, 0.609

0.427

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.309

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.437

-0.136, 1.58

0.100

time_point

1st

2nd

0.727

0.299

0.141, 1.31

0.016

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.809

0.433

-1.66, 0.039

0.063

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.379

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.535

-0.585, 1.51

0.387

time_point

1st

2nd

0.607

0.320

-0.020, 1.23

0.059

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.185

0.464

-0.723, 1.09

0.690

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.618

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.873

-0.528, 2.90

0.176

time_point

1st

2nd

1.33

0.536

0.280, 2.38

0.014

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.606

0.776

-2.13, 0.916

0.436

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.405

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.573

-0.596, 1.65

0.358

time_point

1st

2nd

0.861

0.318

0.238, 1.48

0.007

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.029

0.461

-0.875, 0.932

0.950

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.222

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.314

-0.624, 0.608

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.206

0.225

-0.235, 0.647

0.362

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.448

0.325

-0.189, 1.09

0.170

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.275

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.389

-0.850, 0.674

0.821

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.410

0.262

-0.923, 0.103

0.119

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.423

0.379

-1.17, 0.319

0.265

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.460

-0.677, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.321

0.241

-0.792, 0.150

0.183

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.606

0.349

-1.29, 0.077

0.084

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.471

-1.00, 0.844

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.469

0.249

-0.956, 0.019

0.061

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.266

0.360

-0.972, 0.440

0.461

Pseudo R square

0.007

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.474

-0.520, 1.34

0.390

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.239

0.246

-0.721, 0.244

0.333

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.665

0.357

-1.36, 0.035

0.064

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.937

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.325

-2.04, 3.15

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.04

0.622

-2.26, 0.177

0.095

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.49

0.903

-3.26, 0.280

0.100

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(451) = 29.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(451) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(451) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.56], t(451) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(451) = 66.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(451) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.34], t(451) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.29, 1.64], t(451) = 2.81, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.10, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(451) = 59.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(451) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.47], t(451) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.34e-03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.07], t(451) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(451) = 63.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(451) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38], t(451) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.74], t(451) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(451) = 59.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(451) = 0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.94], t(451) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-9.91e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.05], t(451) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(451) = 50.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.77], t(451) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-6.13e-03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.84], t(451) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(451) = 46.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(451) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.16, 1.32], t(451) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.07, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.22], t(451) = 35.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(451) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-2.67, -0.22], t(451) = -2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.67], t(451) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(451) = 53.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(451) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.10], t(451) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.04], t(451) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(451) = 47.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(451) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.28], t(451) = 1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.36], t(451) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(451) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(451) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [0.30, 2.15], t(451) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.40], t(451) = 0.08, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 8.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(451) = 31.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(451) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.93], t(451) = 1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.66], t(451) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(451) = 27.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.77e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(451) = -1.14e-12, p > .999; Std. beta = -8.00e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.52], t(451) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.62], t(451) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(451) = 34.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(451) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.22, 2.01], t(451) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.42, 1.18], t(451) = -0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.94], t(451) = 41.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(451) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.94e-03, 1.31], t(451) = 1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.13e-03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.42], t(451) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(451) = 52.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(451) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34], t(451) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.94], t(451) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(451) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(451) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.81], t(451) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.89], t(451) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(451) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(451) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.74], t(451) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.76], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(451) = 54.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.58], t(451) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.42], t(451) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-5.45e-03, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.49], t(451) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(451) = 34.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(451) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.47], t(451) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.41], t(451) = -1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(451) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(451) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.99], t(451) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.47], t(451) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(451) = 42.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [7.34e-03, 2.01], t(451) = 1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.81e-03, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.02, 1.15], t(451) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [5.71e-03, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(451) = 0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(451) = 38.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(451) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.03], t(451) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.37], t(451) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.99e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(451) = 90.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(451) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(451) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.61], t(451) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(451) = 46.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(451) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.14, 1.31], t(451) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.04], t(451) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(451) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.51], t(451) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.23], t(451) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-4.80e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.09], t(451) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(451) = 44.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(451) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.28, 2.38], t(451) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.92], t(451) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(451) = 46.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.65], t(451) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.24, 1.48], t(451) = 2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.05, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.93], t(451) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 6.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(451) = 64.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(451) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.65], t(451) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.09], t(451) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(451) = 42.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(451) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.10], t(451) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.32], t(451) = -1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(451) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(451) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.15], t(451) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.08], t(451) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(451) = 30.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(451) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.02], t(451) = -1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 5.03e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.44], t(451) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(451) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(451) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.24], t(451) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.03], t(451) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 9.30e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(451) = 31.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(451) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.18], t(451) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.26, 0.28], t(451) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,455.419

1,467.793

-724.709

1,449.419

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,458.632

1,483.380

-723.316

1,446.632

2.787

3

0.426

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,201.572

2,213.946

-1,097.786

2,195.572

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,195.490

2,220.238

-1,091.745

2,183.490

12.082

3

0.007

ras_confidence

null

3

2,734.672

2,747.046

-1,364.336

2,728.672

ras_confidence

random

6

2,719.517

2,744.265

-1,353.758

2,707.517

21.156

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,857.031

1,869.405

-925.516

1,851.031

ras_willingness

random

6

1,859.717

1,884.465

-923.859

1,847.717

3.314

3

0.346

ras_goal

null

3

2,259.905

2,272.279

-1,126.952

2,253.905

ras_goal

random

6

2,251.677

2,276.425

-1,119.838

2,239.677

14.228

3

0.003

ras_reliance

null

3

2,131.776

2,144.150

-1,062.888

2,125.776

ras_reliance

random

6

2,124.542

2,149.291

-1,056.271

2,112.542

13.234

3

0.004

ras_domination

null

3

2,024.355

2,036.729

-1,009.177

2,018.355

ras_domination

random

6

2,014.909

2,039.657

-1,001.454

2,002.909

15.446

3

0.001

symptom

null

3

3,206.235

3,218.609

-1,600.118

3,200.235

symptom

random

6

3,200.309

3,225.058

-1,594.155

3,188.309

11.926

3

0.008

slof_work

null

3

2,551.257

2,563.631

-1,272.628

2,545.257

slof_work

random

6

2,553.031

2,577.779

-1,270.515

2,541.031

4.226

3

0.238

slof_relationship

null

3

2,747.303

2,759.677

-1,370.652

2,741.303

slof_relationship

random

6

2,747.382

2,772.131

-1,367.691

2,735.382

5.921

3

0.116

satisfaction

null

3

2,937.544

2,949.918

-1,465.772

2,931.544

satisfaction

random

6

2,927.975

2,952.723

-1,457.987

2,915.975

15.569

3

0.001

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,339.384

2,351.758

-1,166.692

2,333.384

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,339.468

2,364.216

-1,163.734

2,327.468

5.916

3

0.116

mhc_social

null

3

2,787.506

2,799.880

-1,390.753

2,781.506

mhc_social

random

6

2,783.050

2,807.798

-1,385.525

2,771.050

10.456

3

0.015

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,909.260

2,921.634

-1,451.630

2,903.260

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,905.219

2,929.967

-1,446.610

2,893.219

10.041

3

0.018

resilisnce

null

3

2,535.210

2,547.584

-1,264.605

2,529.210

resilisnce

random

6

2,524.160

2,548.909

-1,256.080

2,512.160

17.050

3

0.001

social_provision

null

3

2,094.313

2,106.687

-1,044.157

2,088.313

social_provision

random

6

2,090.290

2,115.038

-1,039.145

2,078.290

10.023

3

0.018

els_value_living

null

3

2,210.973

2,223.348

-1,102.487

2,204.973

els_value_living

random

6

2,205.206

2,229.954

-1,096.603

2,193.206

11.767

3

0.008

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,210.796

2,223.170

-1,102.398

2,204.796

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,206.383

2,231.131

-1,097.192

2,194.383

10.413

3

0.015

els

null

3

2,750.598

2,762.972

-1,372.299

2,744.598

els

random

6

2,742.085

2,766.833

-1,365.042

2,730.085

14.514

3

0.002

social_connect

null

3

3,150.367

3,162.741

-1,572.184

3,144.367

social_connect

random

6

3,142.941

3,167.689

-1,565.471

3,130.941

13.426

3

0.004

shs_agency

null

3

2,598.847

2,611.221

-1,296.424

2,592.847

shs_agency

random

6

2,593.059

2,617.807

-1,290.529

2,581.059

11.789

3

0.008

shs_pathway

null

3

2,440.929

2,453.303

-1,217.464

2,434.929

shs_pathway

random

6

2,430.538

2,455.286

-1,209.269

2,418.538

16.391

3

0.001

shs

null

3

3,097.808

3,110.182

-1,545.904

3,091.808

shs

random

6

3,087.796

3,112.544

-1,537.898

3,075.796

16.012

3

0.001

esteem

null

3

1,669.739

1,682.113

-831.870

1,663.739

esteem

random

6

1,674.894

1,699.642

-831.447

1,662.894

0.845

3

0.839

mlq_search

null

3

2,353.350

2,365.724

-1,173.675

2,347.350

mlq_search

random

6

2,352.557

2,377.305

-1,170.278

2,340.557

6.794

3

0.079

mlq_presence

null

3

2,498.294

2,510.668

-1,246.147

2,492.294

mlq_presence

random

6

2,494.169

2,518.917

-1,241.085

2,482.169

10.125

3

0.018

mlq

null

3

2,953.526

2,965.900

-1,473.763

2,947.526

mlq

random

6

2,950.561

2,975.309

-1,469.281

2,938.561

8.965

3

0.030

empower

null

3

2,539.793

2,552.168

-1,266.897

2,533.793

empower

random

6

2,530.812

2,555.560

-1,259.406

2,518.812

14.982

3

0.002

ismi_resistance

null

3

2,068.299

2,080.673

-1,031.149

2,062.299

ismi_resistance

random

6

2,065.464

2,090.212

-1,026.732

2,053.464

8.835

3

0.032

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,246.840

2,259.214

-1,120.420

2,240.840

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,240.828

2,265.576

-1,114.414

2,228.828

12.012

3

0.007

sss_affective

null

3

2,316.703

2,329.077

-1,155.351

2,310.703

sss_affective

random

6

2,307.717

2,332.465

-1,147.859

2,295.717

14.985

3

0.002

sss_behavior

null

3

2,339.126

2,351.500

-1,166.563

2,333.126

sss_behavior

random

6

2,333.632

2,358.380

-1,160.816

2,321.632

11.495

3

0.009

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,339.744

2,352.118

-1,166.872

2,333.744

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,332.684

2,357.432

-1,160.342

2,320.684

13.060

3

0.005

sss

null

3

3,246.883

3,259.257

-1,620.442

3,240.883

sss

random

6

3,235.532

3,260.280

-1,611.766

3,223.532

17.351

3

0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.21

125

3.07 ± 1.21

0.405

0.129

recovery_stage_a

2nd

109

3.23 ± 1.21

-0.029

98

3.29 ± 1.20

-0.222

0.702

-0.064

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.00

125

17.80 ± 3.00

0.833

0.045

recovery_stage_b

2nd

109

17.75 ± 2.92

0.072

98

18.64 ± 2.86

-0.472

0.028

-0.499

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.62

125

30.02 ± 5.62

0.637

-0.117

ras_confidence

2nd

109

30.40 ± 5.42

-0.249

98

31.71 ± 5.28

-0.587

0.080

-0.455

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.04

125

11.66 ± 2.04

0.901

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

109

11.67 ± 1.99

-0.034

98

11.96 ± 1.96

-0.238

0.290

-0.229

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.23

125

17.53 ± 3.23

0.401

-0.187

ras_goal

2nd

109

17.64 ± 3.14

-0.245

98

18.33 ± 3.07

-0.436

0.108

-0.377

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.93

125

13.33 ± 2.93

0.620

-0.123

ras_reliance

2nd

109

13.52 ± 2.83

-0.251

98

13.97 ± 2.76

-0.431

0.244

-0.303

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.197

0.256

ras_domination

2nd

109

10.05 ± 2.34

-0.067

98

10.40 ± 2.31

-0.549

0.286

-0.226

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.81

125

30.21 ± 9.81

0.300

0.278

symptom

2nd

109

30.05 ± 9.42

0.312

98

28.66 ± 9.15

0.333

0.284

0.299

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.58

125

22.06 ± 4.58

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

109

22.51 ± 4.43

-0.180

98

22.60 ± 4.32

-0.219

0.886

-0.035

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.74

125

25.34 ± 5.74

0.248

-0.279

slof_relationship

2nd

109

24.99 ± 5.54

-0.162

98

26.04 ± 5.40

-0.232

0.168

-0.349

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.19

125

21.03 ± 7.19

0.134

-0.390

satisfaction

2nd

109

20.89 ± 6.92

-0.349

98

22.32 ± 6.72

-0.366

0.134

-0.407

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.76

125

11.00 ± 3.76

0.459

-0.190

mhc_emotional

2nd

109

11.09 ± 3.62

-0.239

98

11.40 ± 3.52

-0.214

0.539

-0.164

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.08

125

15.13 ± 6.08

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

109

15.85 ± 5.85

-0.237

98

16.31 ± 5.70

-0.387

0.570

-0.150

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.04

125

21.87 ± 7.04

0.720

-0.094

mhc_psychological

2nd

109

22.66 ± 6.77

-0.327

98

22.86 ± 6.58

-0.292

0.830

-0.059

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.33

125

16.94 ± 4.33

0.166

-0.303

resilisnce

2nd

109

16.83 ± 4.21

-0.261

98

18.06 ± 4.12

-0.448

0.034

-0.490

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.80

125

13.91 ± 2.80

0.036

-0.508

social_provision

2nd

109

13.13 ± 2.70

0.028

98

14.25 ± 2.64

-0.232

0.003

-0.768

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.18

125

17.15 ± 3.18

0.330

-0.237

els_value_living

2nd

109

17.13 ± 3.07

-0.226

98

17.79 ± 2.99

-0.385

0.122

-0.395

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.29

125

13.10 ± 3.29

0.095

-0.442

els_life_fulfill

2nd

109

12.73 ± 3.16

-0.205

98

13.58 ± 3.07

-0.302

0.051

-0.539

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.01

125

30.26 ± 6.01

0.154

-0.395

els

2nd

109

29.86 ± 5.77

-0.252

98

31.38 ± 5.59

-0.408

0.055

-0.551

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.17

125

26.66 ± 9.17

0.295

0.277

social_connect

2nd

109

27.20 ± 8.81

0.156

98

24.72 ± 8.56

0.443

0.041

0.565

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 4.97

125

14.85 ± 4.97

0.110

-0.413

shs_agency

2nd

109

14.19 ± 4.79

-0.143

98

15.73 ± 4.65

-0.363

0.019

-0.633

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.04

125

16.34 ± 4.04

0.049

-0.470

shs_pathway

2nd

109

15.92 ± 3.90

-0.274

98

17.16 ± 3.81

-0.382

0.021

-0.578

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.58

125

31.18 ± 8.58

0.064

-0.484

shs

2nd

109

30.10 ± 8.25

-0.224

98

32.90 ± 8.02

-0.411

0.014

-0.671

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.59

125

12.73 ± 1.59

0.721

0.063

esteem

2nd

109

12.67 ± 1.57

0.117

98

12.77 ± 1.55

-0.036

0.632

-0.090

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.45

125

15.08 ± 3.45

0.100

-0.322

mlq_search

2nd

109

15.09 ± 3.38

-0.325

98

15.00 ± 3.33

0.037

0.848

0.040

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.23

125

13.62 ± 4.23

0.387

-0.194

mlq_presence

2nd

109

13.76 ± 4.10

-0.254

98

14.41 ± 4.02

-0.332

0.251

-0.272

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.90

125

28.70 ± 6.90

0.176

-0.296

mlq

2nd

109

28.84 ± 6.71

-0.333

98

29.42 ± 6.57

-0.181

0.532

-0.144

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.53

125

19.38 ± 4.53

0.358

-0.223

empower

2nd

109

19.71 ± 4.38

-0.363

98

20.27 ± 4.27

-0.376

0.355

-0.235

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.48

125

14.35 ± 2.48

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

109

14.57 ± 2.44

-0.122

98

15.01 ± 2.41

-0.388

0.192

-0.261

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.07

125

11.70 ± 3.07

0.821

0.045

ismi_discrimation

2nd

109

11.38 ± 3.00

0.209

98

10.87 ± 2.95

0.425

0.218

0.261

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.125

sss_affective

2nd

109

10.08 ± 3.50

0.179

98

9.70 ± 3.40

0.518

0.427

0.214

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.73

125

10.10 ± 3.73

0.865

0.043

sss_behavior

2nd

109

9.71 ± 3.59

0.253

98

9.36 ± 3.49

0.397

0.483

0.187

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.390

-0.223

sss_cognitive

2nd

109

8.47 ± 3.60

0.130

98

8.22 ± 3.50

0.493

0.604

0.140

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.47

125

29.84 ± 10.47

0.677

-0.119

sss

2nd

109

28.25 ± 10.03

0.225

98

27.31 ± 9.71

0.548

0.495

0.203

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(413.04) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(435.22) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(331.91) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(374.40) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.68)

ras_confidence

1st

t(308.17) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)

2st

t(346.89) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.77)

ras_willingness

1st

t(341.15) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(383.66) = 1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.83)

ras_goal

1st

t(324.81) = 0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(366.76) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.55)

ras_reliance

1st

t(308.04) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)

2st

t(346.72) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.22)

ras_domination

1st

t(346.45) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)

2st

t(388.65) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.98)

symptom

1st

t(298.72) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(334.29) = -1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.93 to 1.15)

slof_work

1st

t(317.10) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(357.90) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.28)

slof_relationship

1st

t(311.92) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(351.62) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.55)

satisfaction

1st

t(302.40) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(339.32) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.29)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(303.95) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)

2st

t(341.38) = 0.61, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.28)

mhc_social

1st

t(305.43) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(343.33) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.04)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(301.18) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(337.66) = 0.21, p = 0.830, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.63 to 2.03)

resilisnce

1st

t(327.43) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(369.63) = 2.12, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.37)

social_provision

1st

t(311.38) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(350.95) = 3.03, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.85)

els_value_living

1st

t(310.71) = 0.97, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)

2st

t(350.11) = 1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(300.31) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(336.48) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.70)

els

1st

t(295.46) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)

2st

t(329.71) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.07)

social_connect

1st

t(300.12) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)

2st

t(336.22) = -2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.85 to -0.10)

shs_agency

1st

t(303.05) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)

2st

t(340.18) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.84)

shs_pathway

1st

t(313.67) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)

2st

t(353.78) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.29)

shs

1st

t(301.83) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)

2st

t(338.55) = 2.47, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.57 to 5.02)

esteem

1st

t(376.66) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)

2st

t(413.08) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.53)

mlq_search

1st

t(350.07) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(391.93) = -0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.83)

mlq_presence

1st

t(322.96) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)

2st

t(364.69) = 1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.76)

mlq

1st

t(327.60) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(369.81) = 0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.39)

empower

1st

t(311.31) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.66)

2st

t(350.86) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.74)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(360.70) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(400.97) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.10)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(346.07) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(388.30) = -1.23, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(303.52) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(340.81) = -0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.56)

sss_behavior

1st

t(304.54) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(342.16) = -0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.62)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(302.68) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(339.69) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.72)

sss

1st

t(291.77) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.16)

2st

t(324.36) = -0.68, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.64 to 1.76)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(233.45) = 1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(220.48) = 3.37, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(216.51) = 4.17, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.89 to 2.48)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(221.97) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.65)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(219.32) = 3.11, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.31)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(216.49) = 3.06, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(222.81) = 3.93, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.42 to 1.26)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(214.87) = -2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.83 to -0.26)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(218.03) = 1.55, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.23)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(217.16) = 1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.53)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(215.51) = 2.59, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.26)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(215.78) = 1.52, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.91)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(216.04) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.33 to 2.02)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(215.30) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(219.75) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.82)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(217.06) = 1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(216.95) = 2.73, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(215.15) = 2.14, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.91)

els

1st vs 2st

t(214.29) = 2.89, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.89)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(215.11) = -3.14, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.16 to -0.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(215.62) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.56)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(217.45) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.41)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(215.41) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.56 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(227.56) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(223.39) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.53)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(219.01) = 2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(219.77) = 1.29, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.83)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(217.05) = 2.67, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(225.06) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(222.75) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.29)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(215.71) = -3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.43)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(215.88) = -2.82, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.22)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(215.56) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.39)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(213.62) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.82 to -1.24)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(222.90) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(214.39) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.34)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(211.93) = 1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.48)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(215.33) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(213.67) = 1.83, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(211.92) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.77)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(215.86) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.51)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(210.92) = -2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.67 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(212.87) = 1.34, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.11)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(212.33) = 1.21, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.28)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(211.32) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.16)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(211.48) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(211.64) = 1.76, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.53)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(211.19) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.01)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(213.93) = 1.94, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.32)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(212.27) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.35)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(212.20) = 1.69, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.81)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(211.09) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.74)

els

1st vs 2st

t(210.57) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.43)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(211.07) = -1.16, p = 0.497, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.48)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(211.39) = 1.07, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.00)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(212.51) = 2.04, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(211.26) = 1.67, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.04)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(218.93) = -0.88, p = 0.763, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.17)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(216.23) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.32)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(213.47) = 1.90, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.24)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(213.95) = 2.48, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.39)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(212.26) = 2.71, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.49)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(217.30) = 0.91, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(215.83) = -1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.11)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(211.44) = -1.33, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(211.55) = -1.88, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.02)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(211.35) = -0.97, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.25)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(210.17) = -1.67, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.18)

Plot

Clinical significance